`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DEMARAY LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent 7,381,657 B2
`_________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 7,381,657
`In response to the Board’s order (Paper 9)1, Petitioner submits this reply to
`
`Patent Owner’s (“PO”) preliminary response (Paper 7) (“POPR”). As explained
`
`before (Paper 1, 69-72) and below, the Fintiv factors favor institution.
`
`As to factor 1, PO relies on Cont’l Intermodal Grp., asserting that Judge
`
`Albright’s proclivity is to deny stays. (POPR, 4.) But unlike the three year
`
`pendency before IPR institution in that case, the related Texas litigation
`
`commenced only months ago. (EXS. 1075, 1076.) Nonetheless, the Board should
`
`not speculate the likelihood of stay, especially since Judge Albright’s has recently
`
`granted a joint motion to stay pending IPR. Kuster v. Western Digital Tech., Inc.,
`
`WDTX-6-20-cv-00563 (March 12, 2021); Western Digital Corp. et al v. Kuster,
`
`IPR2020-01391, Paper 10 at 8-9 (March 11, 2021) (declining to speculate on
`
`likelihood of a stay after institution); Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Snik
`
`LLC, IPR2020-01427, Paper 10 at 10 (March 9, 2021) (similar). The NDCA
`
`court’s denial of an injunction (POPR, 4; Ex. 2004, 1) does not tip the scale in
`
`PO’s favor, especially since Petitioner’s declaratory judgement (“DJ”) action has
`
`since been refiled. Applied Materials, Inc. v. Demaray LLC, Case No. 20-cv-
`
`
`1 The order precludes filing of additional evidence. (Id. at 3.) However, if the
`
`Board would like, Petitioner will provide copies of the case docket entries cited
`
`herein.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 7,381,657
`09341, Dkt No. 1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 24, 2020). If anything, that action favors
`
`institution given the stay pending resolution of PO’s dismissal motion to be heard
`
`April 8. Id., Dkt No. 27 at 11-12 (Jan. 14, 2021); id., Dkt No. 29 (Jan. 21, 2021).
`
`As to factor 2, while PO notes that trial in the Texas litigation is set for
`
`December 27, 2021 (POPR, 5), Judge Albright has scheduled another trial on the
`
`same day as trial in both the Intel and Samsung cases, which suggests dates will
`
`need to be revised. See, e.g., Neodron Ltd. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., No. 6:20-
`
`cv-560, Dkt No. 30 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2020). Indeed, the Court’s latest
`
`scheduling order moved the Markman hearing to April 6, 20212 and indicates that
`
`“the Court will consider reasonable amendments to the case schedule post-
`
`Markman that are consistent with the Court’s default deadlines in light of the
`
`actual trial date.” Demaray LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-634 Dkt No. 49 at 4
`
`n.4 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2021). The Court’s order governing patent proceedings
`
`issued one day later sets a default trial date “52 weeks after Markman hearing (or
`
`as soon as practicable).”3 Scheduling trial 52 weeks or more post-Markman is
`
`
`2 The Court later indicated Markman will not be held until the defendants’ transfer
`
`motion is resolved. Demaray, No. 20-cv-00634 Dkt No. 65 (Mar. 17, 2021).
`
`3 Judge Albright’s “Order Governing Proceedings - Patent Cases 022321.pdf”
`
`available at https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/judges-information/standing-orders/.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 7,381,657
`consistent with the Court’s recent practice. For example, the trial referenced by
`
`PO (POPR, 5) occurred nearly 63 weeks post-Markman, with two more addressing
`
`other patents scheduled to occur nearly 70 and 78 weeks post-Markman. See VLSI
`
`Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., 1:19-cv-977 Dkt No. 96 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 12, 2019), Dkt
`
`No. 427 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2021).
`
`Thus, even without any other delays4, trial is likely to be within a month of
`
`the Board’s anticipated FWD.5 The Board has instituted trial where a litigation
`
`trial date precedes FWD by much more. Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l
`
`Intermodal Grp–Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 8-10 (June 16, 2020)
`
`(informative) (factor 2 favored institution despite WDTX trial preceding FWD by
`
`five months); Western Digital Corp., IPR2020-01391 at 9-10 (factor 2 being
`
`neutral despite WDTX trial predating FWD by three and a half months); Apple
`
`Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc., IPR2020-00686, Paper 9 at 11–13, 22 (instituting trial
`
`where WDTX trial was two months before FWD). Even if somehow the
`
`
`4 See HP Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLC, IPR2020-01085, Paper 12 at 7 (Jan. 14,
`
`2021) (WDTX civil trials “may possibly slip” due to “months of backlogged
`
`trials”).
`
`5 The Texas court has not yet decided the defendants’ transfer motion, which if
`
`granted, will undoubtedly delay any trial past the anticipated FWD deadline.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 7,381,657
`December 2021 trial date is maintained (or moved earlier), other factors outweigh
`
`this trial date issue, such as Petitioner’s diligence, defendants’ stipulation, and lack
`
`of relevant investment as noted below. SK Hynix Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-01421, Paper 10 at 6–13 (Mar. 16, 2021). Indeed, the lack of a trial date
`
`in the pending NDCA DJ action, and that any such trial will likely occur after
`
`FWD, favors institution. Dolby Labs., Inc. v. Intertrust Technologies Corp.,
`
`PTAB-IPR2020-01123, Paper 10, at 16 (Jan. 6, 2021).
`
`As to factor 3, PO is wrong that significant resources will be expended by
`
`the Board’s May 16 institution deadline. (POPR 6.) Other than Markman-related
`
`activities, there has been little investment in the Texas litigation—particularly on
`
`validity. Indeed, contrary to PO’s miscalculation (id.), final contentions are not
`
`due until June 1, which is after the institution deadline. Demaray, Case No. 20-cv-
`
`00634 Dkt No. 49 at 3. PO’s reliance on anticipated post-institution activities
`
`(POPR, 6-7) is also misplaced as the focus under this factor “is the actual
`
`investment…at the time [the Board] decide[s] whether to institute.” Dolby Labs.,
`
`PTAB-IPR2020-01123 at 19-20. Even so, activities unrelated to validity should
`
`“not weigh in [the Board’s] consideration of this issue.” Western Digital Corp.,
`
`IPR2020-01391 at 11. PO’s reliance on Bentley Motors is misplaced as its
`
`litigation was further along compared to the Texas litigation here. Bentley Motors
`
`Ltd. v. Jaguar Land Rover Ltd., IPR2019-01539, Paper 16, at 8-10 (Oct. 2, 2020)
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 7,381,657
`(eight month difference). Further, PO does not dispute Petitioner’s diligence in
`
`filing its IPRs—all done despite PO’s delays in the Texas litigation. Ex. 2003, 2-3;
`
`Demaray, Dkt No. 43 (Jan. 31, 2021) at 73:15-74:15 (ordering PO to amend its
`
`infringement contentions); id., Dkt No. 49 (Feb. 22, 2021) (shifting Markman
`
`deadlines until after PO amends contentions).
`
`As to factor 4, despite PO’s concerns about non-asserted prior art (which
`
`Petitioner disputes) and PO’s suggestion otherwise (POPR, 7), the defendants’
`
`stipulation ensures no overlap will exist with any asserted grounds upon institution.
`
`(Ex. 2003, 27-30.) Last, without disputing Petitioner’s diligence, PO relies on
`
`Sections III-V of its POPR in support of factor 6. (POPR, 8; Paper 1, 71-72.)
`
`PO’s misunderstandings of the prior art and/or Petitioner’s positions do not
`
`overcome the overwhelming evidence of unpatentability here. While unable to
`
`address PO’s substantive failings here,6 Petitioner believes it is helpful to point out
`
`that PO’s acknowledgement that the prior art combination discloses applying a
`
`bipolar pulsed DC power to a target and an RF bias to a substrate both supports the
`
`strength of the asserted grounds and narrows issues for trial. (Compare Paper 1,
`
`18-25 and 32 with POPR at 4, 22, and 37.)
`
`
`6 PO should likewise be precluded from rearguing or bolstering its merit positions
`
`in its sur-reply. (Paper 9, 3.)
`
`5
`
`
`
`Dated: March 22, 2021
`
`IPR2021-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 7,381,657
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
` Joseph E. Palys (Reg. No. 46,508)
` Counsel for Petitioner Applied
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00106
`U.S. Patent No. 7,381,657
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on March 22, 2021, I caused a true and correct copy of
`
`the foregoing Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to be
`
`served electronically on counsel for Patent Owner at the following addresses:
`
`hzhong@irell.com
`mwells@irell.com
`bhattenbach@irell.com
`DemarayIPRs@irell.com
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`/Joseph E. Palys/
` Joseph E. Palys (Reg. No. 46,508)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`